[IRP] Some punch

parminder parminder
Mon Oct 4 13:28:56 EEST 2010

On Monday 04 October 2010 03:46 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:15:48PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:
>> 2) With courts in many countries - France, Costa Rica etc - have
>> held right to access the Internet as a fundamental right, why should
>> a non-binding forward looking progressive civil society document
>> like this be so defensive on this issue to propose just a right to
>> Internet under affordable conditions.
> I found the "under affordable conditions" in the 1.0 draft also
> rather clumsy. I take it you don't like my "affordable access"
> any better?
> Would you go as far as to demand cost-free access?
> Perhaps it'd be better to leave all qualifications away and say
> "all people must have access to the Internet", period.
'All people must have access to the Internet as a right' makes it 
clearer, because often 'must have access' is simply considered as an ICT 
connection point must be available to be used, subject to conditions, of 
affordable fees etc.

>> 3) The threat to the open architecture of Internet should be more
>> clearly addressed. That is the single biggest danger looming over us
>> today.
> Agreed on principle. However:
>>     Internet is a global commons and its architecture has to be
>>     protected and promoted for it to be a vehicle for free, open, equal
>>     and non-discriminating exchange of information, communication and
>>     culture, with no special privileges for or obstacles against any
>>     party or content on economic, social, cultural, or political grounds.
> I find that in some ways weaker than my formulation.
> In particular, "has to be protected and promoted" is weaker
> than "shall be... must not be...".
Of course, shall be and must not be are better... Will you pl refer me 
to 'your formulation' that you mentioning about here.
>>     This however does not preclude positive discrimination to promote
>>     equity and diversity on and through the Internet.(ends)
> Somehow this doesn't feel good here to me. At the very least drop the
> "however", as this should be seen as an obvious consequence of the
> aforesaid rather than as an exception to it.
Sure, 'however' is not needed. Parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101004/3594b133/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list